Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
Muttappa Hanamappa Kumbar – Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of land acquisition and previous compensation awards. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against condoning delay in filing appeal. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's interpretation of sufficient cause and liberal approach. (Para 7 , 12 , 15) |
| 4. importance of sufficient cause in relation to limitation laws. (Para 8 , 14) |
| 5. rejection of appeal due to lack of sufficient cause. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL, J.
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for higher compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.10.2002 passed in LAC No.140/2002 by the II Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division, Bagalkot.
2. Heard Sri.Sajid Goodwala for Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.
3. It is averred that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.236 measuring 2 acres 18 guntas situated at Semikeri village, Bagalkot taluk and district, which has been acquired for Upper Krishna Project vide preliminary notification dated 15.09.1998. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the market value of the land at Rs.22,428/- per acre.
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals must be justified adequately; mere claims of parity with other cases do not suffice to condone significant delays under the Limitation Act.
Legal representatives cannot re-agitate disputes over compensation post-finality; delay in appeal without compelling justification is not condoned.
(1) Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Appeal which is preferred after expiry of limitation is liable to be dismissed.(2) Bar of limitation – Delay is not liable to be condoned merely be....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant must provide a reasonable and plausible explanation, absence of negligence or malafides, and legal and adequate reasons to condo....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the judicial approach to condonation of delay in land acquisition matters, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach due to the illiteracy and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show sufficient cause for delay as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the need for a reasonable and plausible explan....
The court emphasized that while a liberal approach is generally applied in condoning delays under the Limitation Act, lack of sufficient cause, particularly evident inactivity, precludes such discret....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law of limitation has to be applied with rigor, and a satisfactory explanation is required for condonation of delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
